Friday, February 16, 2007

in my mind, one of the great over-simplifications of 20th C protestantism is the belief that there is only one way to understand salvation.

and - yes - i realize that even saying that much already makes me sound like a heretic :)

see, substitutionary atonement [the atonement theology that talks about jesus dying for our sins to pay the penality of death on a cross as a sacrifice for all the world to be saved] is a great way of understanding what jesus has made available to us; but, it's not the only way.

neither is it the only atonement theology represented in scripture.

equally, biblically credible atonment theories include christus victor, cleansing theory, and theosis to name just a few of the several dozen that have recently returned to theological vogue.

what's important about all of these is that they are all attempts to illustrate [and textually support] the centrality of jesus christ to the redemption of the world.

what's important for us is to recognize that he hasn't just saved the world in one way, but makes salvation available in every way.

by which i mean that he was indeed a sacrificial offering for our sins, but he also justifies us by paying the price for our sins [which is different, but accomplishes the same thing], and he also pays our metaphysical debts [which is different, but accomplishes the same thing], and he also reconciles us to himself [which is different, but accomplishes the same thing],

just as his death was an act of defiance, exhausting the powers of evil and his incarnation and ascension were echoes of the image of god placed into us in the garden of eden - which ultimately re-awoke that image in us and allows us presently to be participants in the divine nature.

why is this important?

briefly? because i find that substitutionary atonement is an atonment theology that doesn't make any sense to our world. alan mann did a great job of unpacking this in his book "atonement for a 'sinless' society", wherein he made note of the fact that no one in our world believes in sin anymore - so, a gospel that begins by telling people they've been separated from god by sin isn't useful.

to some people it must sound like we're just making stuff up.

i mean, if no one believes that sin exists and if those same people have a foggy/shadowy notion of a god that probably exists but is unknowable then it must sound a bit odd for us to begin talking about being separated from that god by virtue of something that they don't believe is realso we find ourselves trying to convince them that sin is real and that their sin is real and that they are sin"ful" which is tantamount to saying "you're a crappy human being" which most people don't particularly appreciated

so now, instead of introducing them to the life-giving and transformative power of jesus christwe've told them they suck and are going to hell unless they listen to our abstract theological concepts

which rarely works

and mostly pisses people off

and then we get confused as to why no one wants to be a christian anymore in america?

however; if we begin to mine historical theology i believe we gain access to innumerable other atonement theologies that actually DO make sense to people today

like christus victor - which tells us about the story of a revolutionary rabbi who defied the imperial powers of injustice and advocated for the justice of god to be present with the poor, the lonely, the disenfranchised, and the unloved

or, theosis - which tells us that we are fundamentally spiritual people [a statement which rarely breeds any disagreement], and that we have been made in the shadow and image of the supreme being. theosis tells us that our image has been damaged, that we are spiritually separated from ourselves and from god, and that we can participate in the nature of god and in our true nature by embracing jesus christ.

if we are willing to hold loosely to our articulations of jesus' significance; and simultaneously unwilling to diminish his significance today; then i believe we can learn from our forebears about how else to biblically and credibly articulate how jesus saves so that people can get it and embrace it in our world today.

3 comments:

"what's important for us is to recognize that he hasn't just saved the world in one way, but makes salvation available in every way."

As one who primarily holds to the "Kingdom Theology" of George Ladd I agree, but it seems as though you arguing one theology of salvation for one person, and another for so-and-so because they may not find the other version the other person got as palatable.

"i mean, if no one believes that sin existsand if those same people have a foggy/shadowy notion of a god that probably exists but is unknowable then it must sound a bit odd for us to begin talking about being separated from that god by virtue of something that they don't believe is real"

Greek religious practices held a view of give and take among deities and people. Gods and goddesses were expected to give gifts, and in return people gave votive offerings. Some gave thought sin, and others not at all. With Greek religious practices heavily influencing the Roman culture, and religious practices that would make a New York City prostitute blush, the Apostle Paul was faced with many of the same views that those in our culture hold, or worse than those in our culture hold. Yet his theological view of salvation is stated plainly in his epistle to the Romans.

"so we find ourselves trying to convince them that sin is real and that their sin is real and that they are sin"ful" which is tantamount to saying "you're a crappy human being" which most people don't particularly appreciated"

It is not our job to convince and/or convict people of sin, as this is the job of the Holy Spirit. To simply say people don't believe in sin anymore, so lets take a different approach, would seem to attempt to limit his work in the life of a non-Christ follower, and in turn weaken the message.

"so now, instead of introducing them to the life-giving and transformative power of jesus christwe've told them they suck and are going to hell unless they listen to our abstract theological concepts"

That's a pretty large blanket statement to make, but obviously the happens. Unfortunately tact seems to be a virtue that many a Christ-follower lacks, and sometimes bad Christians happen to good people. Even this however, does not necessitate such a large shift in the theology of salvation.

"like christus victor - which tells us about the story of a revolutionary rabbi who defied the imperial powers of injustice and advocated for the justice of god to be present with the poor, the lonely, the disenfranchised, and the unloved"

This is romantic and very true. However, the price Christ paid for our sins is what allows us to fully follow in his footsteps and also defy the imperial powers of injustice, and advocate the justice of God to be present with the poor, the lonely, the disenfranchised, and the unloved as we walk in the good works that he has prepared for us beforehand. To have one without the other is like having Kool-aid with no sugar. It just doesn't taste right.

"or, theosis - which tells us that we are fundamentally spiritual people [a statement which rarely breeds any disagreement], and that we have been made in the shadow and image of the supreme being. theosis tells us that our image has been damaged, that we are spiritually separated from ourselves and from god, and that we can participate in the nature of god and in our true nature by embracing jesus christ."

This seems to be the commonly held view of salvation just dressed up in different language. My first question, as a non-Christ follower would be, "What damaged my soul?" The answer: Sin Next question, "How does embracing Jesus fix my soul?" I think you can see where I'm going with this.

I hear what you're saying and I can sort of see where you're going with it, but I'm not sure that it is necessary and may in many ways be harmful. What happened when Jesus' disciples heard the "difficult" teachings of Jesus? Many left him. I would hate to see, "I didn't realize Jesus had that in mind -- see ya." as people walk out the door feeling they had been the victim of a bait and switch.

Dave, I appreciate your ministry and your willingness to mine the rich tradition of Christian thought over the centuries. I have long argued (often in vain) that more attention be paid to the Ante-Nicean Fathers and the Apocrypha - not as Scripture but as certainly more wise and valuable that Max Lucado!

Having said that, your position on atonement sounds like you've swung the pendulum just a bit too far. I agree with your basic tenent that many people in America are not familiar with the language of "sin". I agree with you that theosis can be another way of helping to explain the atonement. I disagree, however, that this means would should more or less abandon preaching and teaching and otherwise proclaiming the substitutionary atonement.

I would argue that we need to move away from the false assumption that people know what we're talking about when we say "sin", "atonment", "propitiations" (does anybody really know what that one means!), etc...

But to me, this means we must decontruct the language we use and re-construct it into something more culturally understandable. If using theosis language helps this process, great. But I don't think it appropriate that we simply discard "substitutionary atonement" theology.

So I guess I've said all that to ask this, Dave: why did you decide to abandon preaching and teaching the substitutionary atonement instead of redeeming its language?

Do you REALLY believe people don't know what sin is? Really? Honestly?

A person may not know what specific law an act violates, but deep inside, when he commits the act, he is most likely saying to himself, "I wonder if I will get busted for this" as his heart flutters or pounds. This applies to physical and spiritual laws.

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse", as the saying goes in the law enforcement community. Knowledge of the "law" -- physical and spiritual--(or whatever it is that makes my heart pound when I do wrong) is written on every man's heart.

We must be careful not to purposely offend. Unfortunately, however, the message of the cross is inherently offensive. I'd hate to have to give an answer to God for why I offended Him by changing his gospel message that He scripted.